Bothsiderism Is Bad Enough In Politics; In Environmental & Climate Coverage, It's Deadly
Ever wonder why Americans have been so slow to support climate action? A new study lays some of the blame on media bias for 30 years, three of the countrys most influential sources of news gave too much credence to arguments that the world shouldnt take decisive action to mitigate climate change. Opponents of climate action have been given an outsize opportunity to sway this debate, said Rachel Wetts, the author of the study. Her results were published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Wetts analyzed 1,768 press releases from business, government, and social advocacy organizations from 1985 to 2013, categorizing them by their stance on climate action. She then ran the press releases through plagiarism detection software to see how often they were featured in the countrys largest-circulation newspapers: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and USA Today. She found that even though 10 percent of the press releases contained messaging against climate action arguments like, It would be too expensive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 14 percent of them wound up in print. By contrast, the more prevalent press releases arguing for personal, corporate, or political action to tackle climate change were only covered 7 percent of the time. And the least-covered press releases came from groups with the most expertise on science and technology, such as the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and IBM.
EDIT
Previous research has suggested that this practice also known as bothsidesism began to decline in the mid-2000s. But Wetts analysis found no statistically significant change in coverage over the 30-year period of the study. She also said that the trend couldnt be explained by excessive coverage of anti-climate press releases in the business-friendly Wall Street Journal. Claims that steps to curb carbon emissions would be too costly or undermine U.S. energy independence, for instance, also found favor in the liberal-leaning New York Times.
As climate denial falls out of fashion, whats been called climate delay has taken some of its space. This is when people acknowledge the reality of climate change but seek to put off large-scale efforts to address it, sometimes redirecting responsibility for the climate crisis to consumers and emphasizing the downsides of urgent action.
EDIT
https://grist.org/climate/the-curse-of-both-sidesism-how-climate-denial-skewed-media-coverage-for-30-years/